Determining Effective Selection and Implementation of Function-Based Interventions in Schools

Presented by Lauraine Allen, April Ard, Erin Dean, Michelle MacGregor,

Alex Nalivaiko, Kelly Rulon, Amanda Skourtis & Claire Zandoli

2

Students with severe emotional & behavioral issues

nationwide: whether or not they are eligible for special education

services or experience full inclusion, will not demonstrate significant academic or behavioral progress over an entire academic year (Minahan & Rappaport, 2012).

will always make up 5% of the student body in our nation’s schools (Taylor-Green et. al, 1997).

make up over 50% of office referrals, which reduces instructional time and increases the likelihood of school dropout rates for this population (Arcia, 2006).

Introduction & Literature Review

1997 amendment of IDEA requires the use of

functional behavioral assessments (FBA) and positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) under certain circumstances for students with IEPs in schools.

IDEIA 2004 articulates the criteria for implementation of a positive behavior support plan for students with IEPs (Wright et. al, 2007).

FBA is an example of a functional based intervention that examines the antecedent, behaviors and the consequences to determine the reason of the behavior (Gresham, Watson, & Skinner, 2001).

Foundations & IDEA

What are the critical features of function-based

intervention across setting events, antecedents, behavior and consequences?

What processes do experts and non-experts use in coming up with/developing behavioral interventions? What are similarities and differences in the

approach to identifying function-based intervention based on FBA information?

How can this information be used to provide better training in identifying function-based interventions?

Research Questions

Methods

Participants divided into two categories: seven

“experts,” and eight “non-experts.” Experts were defined as people who have published

work in the field of positive behavior supports and were located throughout the country.

Non-experts were defined as people who currently work in the field of education and had some background in behavior support planning.

Participants signed a consent form then agreed to either complete an interview on the phone, via Skype or in person.

Participants & Setting

Interview tool: behavior pathway forms

revised to include sample students and sample problem behaviors (vignettes), created by Chris Borgmeier, PhD. and Sheldon Lohman, PhD.

Participants filled out one “choice” vignette and one “open-ended” vignette.

Each pair of vignettes had a different function and problem behavior.

Measures

Choice

Interview tool

Open Ended

Semi-structured interviews (approximately 30

minutes) which were recorded then transcribed by the researchers.

Participants were given two vignettes with different functions of behavior the day before the scheduled interview.

Participants were prompted by researchers to explain why they came up with or chose specific interventions as well as logic/reasoning for ruling out other interventions.

Procedures

Results

Non E

xper

t Alt

Beh

Expe

rt Alt

Beh

Non E

xper

t Ant

ec

Expe

rt Ant

ec

Non E

xper

t Tea

ch B

eh

Expe

rt Te

ach

Beh

Non E

xper

t Rei

n Beh

Expe

rt Rei

n Beh

Non E

xper

t Ext

ing

Beh

Expe

rt Ex

ting

Beh

Non E

xper

t Ove

rall

Expe

rt Ove

rall

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Correct Responses

A presence of “high performing” non-experts

emerged when comparing correct responses across all of the data categories.

2/8 non-experts answered all the questions correctly. Range of 14% correct to 100% correct responses.

Not a single expert scored 100% correct. Range of 71% correct to 86% correct responses.

Trends in Data

Discussion

There were a range of non-experts.

Found similarities among the higher scoring non-experts’ and experts’ approach and explanations for identifying interventions.

Non-experts who scored low didn’t identify function when determining interventions, while experts did. Non-experts often went with interventions they have done

before; what might have worked with other students. “I’ve seen this work for teachers before.”

Had reasons for choosing interventions, but did not link to function of behavior & individual student needs.

Comparison of Experts & Non-Experts

Experts & higher scoring ‘non-experts’ used a

common language & approach to identifying interventions that were based on function. More direct responses and more streamlined

approach to identifying interventions & ruling out interventions.

Common Features of Experts & Higher Performing Non-

Experts

Experts talked a lot about the use of

reinforcement to maintain behavior. Non-experts didn’t link reinforcement to the

alternate behavior, but focused more on long-term, desired behavior.

Interventions responding to problem behavior: Greater focus on extinction vs. redirection to

alternate behavior across both experts & non-experts.

Critical Features of Interventions Identified by Participants

When training to identify antecedent

interventions, it is necessary to explicitly link them to function.

Training needs to focus on concept of alternate behavior & reinforcement and redirection to alternate behavior.

Implications for Training

We can more effectively teach concepts and

strategies for identifying function-based intervention BUT there are still challenges to:

daily use and implementation. implementation with staff who do not understand

behavior from a functional perspective: more punishment oriented. Prefer to use same 2-3 interventions, rather than

something new (and individualized).

Implications for Training, cont.

Small sample size. After the analysis of data collection,

researchers determined additional prompting of reasons for selecting interventions during semi-structured interviews was necessary.

Limitations

Use trends in processes and strategies

‘experts’ and high performing ‘non-experts’ used to identify function-based interventions to inform training methods.

Evaluate methods of training emerging professionals to identify function-based interventions for students.

Future Research

We found that identified experts in the field

were more accurate and more likely to link their intervention choices to the given function.

Non-experts were less accurate and more likely to use interventions that they had previously implemented.

These findings suggest that future research and training need to focus on the concept of linking interventions explicitly to the function of behavior.

In Conclusion

Arcia, E. (2006). Achievement and enrollment status of suspended students: Outcomes in a large, multicultural school district. Education and Urban Society, 38(3), 359-369.Gresham, F. M., Watson, T. S., Skinner, C. H. (2001). Functional behavior assessment: Principles, procedures, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 30(2), 156-172.Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., & Longton, J. (1997). School-wide behavioral support: Starting the year off right. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 99-112.Minahan, J. &. Rappaport, N. (2012). Be a behavior detective: Improving prospects for challenging students. Harvard Education Letter, 28(3). Retrieved from http://www.hepg.org/hel/article/534Wright, D. B., Mayer, G. R., Cook, C. R., Crews, S. D., Kraemer, B. R., & Gale, B. (2007). A preliminary study on the effects of training using behavior support plan and quality evaluation guide (BSP-QE) to improve positive behavior support plans. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(3), 90-106.

References